Equitable relief

2024 PLD 165 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12, 22 & 42Suit for declaration and specific performance of agreement to sellLimitationTime barred suitEffectIlliterate old womanEquitable reliefSuit was concurrently decreed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court in favour of respondent/plaintiffPlea raised by petitioner/defendant was that suit was barred by limitationValidityRespondent/plaintiff instituted suit with delay of 4 ½ years and such delay defeated equityRespondent/plaintiff failed to prove that he paid price of suit landPlaintiff was out of possession and respondent/defendant was an illiterate woman of extremly old age

Equity leaned in favour of petitioner/defendant and not in favour of respondent/plaintiff, who had come with tainted hands

Relief of specific performance is equitable under Ss. 12 & 22 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

High Court set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as the same were perverse

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 YLR 935 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.12Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable propertySpecific performanceEquitable reliefScopeContumacious conduct of plaintiffEffect

Contention of the appellant/plaintiff was that she could not deposit balance sale consideration as some of the share-holders were abroad and that her counsel did not affix the court fee

Held, that it was own claim of the appellant/plaintiff that huge amount (of six crore) was outstanding on her part as balance sale-consideration

Mandatory for the party (plaintiff or defendant who sought enforcement of agreement under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, that the balance amount be deposited in the Court on the first appearance or on the date after the institution of the suit as per the permission of Court and any omission in said regard would entail dismissal of suit

When the time, fixed in the agreement to sell, approached the plaintiff should have been ready to show her willingness for performance of the sale agreement

Appellant/plaintiff was to show his/her bona fide by depositing the total sale consideration in the Court to demonstrate her readiness and willingness for performance of the sale agreement and any contumacious omission in said regard would entail dismissal of the suit for specific performance being an equitable relief

Trial Court, in the present case, specifically directed the appellant to deposit balance consideration amount along with proper court fee as per valuation of the suit within a period of two months, but neither balance amount nor court-fee was affixed by the appellant

Conduct of the appellant showed that she was not serious in performing her agreed part of contract or in pursuing her remedy of specific performance

Said conduct of the appellant on the touchstone of equitable principles on the subject, disentitled the appellant of equitable relief of specific performance

Contention of appellant that some of the share-holders were living abroad would not absolve her as no share-holder was even party to the lis

Conduct of the appellant was contumacious in not depositing the balance consideration amount, he was lawfully denied the equitable relief of specific performance

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 YLR 1852 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Interim injunction, grant ofScopeEquitable reliefInjunction was a form of equitable relief and was to be issued in aid of equity and justice but not in aid of injustice

For grant of injunction, it was mandatory not only to establish that petitioner had a prima facie case, but also that balance of convenience was on his side and that he would suffer irreparable loss/injury unless he was protracted during the pendency of suit.

2020 CLC 1074 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2Interim injunctionEquitable reliefIngredientsScopeInjunction being equitable relief can be granted in aid of justice, but not otherwise

No injunction can be issued unless all ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the aggrieved party co-exist.

2020 YLR 1044 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdictionFactual controversyEquitable reliefScope

Petitioner claimed that he was in possession of government land; that he had applied for its lease with the concerned authorities by making an application and till the time such application was disposed of by the authorities concerned, he might not be dispossessed from the said land

Authorities contended that the petitioner was not in possession of the said land

Validity

Two rival claims with regard to the possession of the land was put forward by both the parties; such controversy being factual in nature could not be resolved by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction

Even if petitioner's contention that he was in possession was believed even then his possession was without authorization

Petitioner's status over the land was that of an encroacher/ trespasser

Encroacher / trespasser could hardly ask for equitable relief

Constitutional petition was incompetent and the same was filed by the petitioner to protect his unlawful possession over the public property

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 PLD 198 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Equitable relief

Such relief could not be granted to a person who came to the court with unclean hands.